1984
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(1984)110:2(401)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Structural Serviceability: Floor Vibrations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
37
0
1

Year Published

1990
1990
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 77 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
0
37
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In case of evaluation of vibration serviceability, generally codes and standards present two approaches. First is static deflection caused by nominal live load which is commonly limited to SPAN/360 (A58, 1982) or between SPAN/180 and SPAN/480 in different specifications (ACI 318-77, 1977 andAISC, 1978), and second is the minimum of DEPTH/SPAN for flexural members depending on the end restrains (ACI 318-77, 1977) [14]. Ellingwood and Tallin [14] stated that control of the static deflection is not sufficient to evaluate the vibration serviceability of floors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In case of evaluation of vibration serviceability, generally codes and standards present two approaches. First is static deflection caused by nominal live load which is commonly limited to SPAN/360 (A58, 1982) or between SPAN/180 and SPAN/480 in different specifications (ACI 318-77, 1977 andAISC, 1978), and second is the minimum of DEPTH/SPAN for flexural members depending on the end restrains (ACI 318-77, 1977) [14]. Ellingwood and Tallin [14] stated that control of the static deflection is not sufficient to evaluate the vibration serviceability of floors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Sandun de Silva and Thambiratnam [10], da Silve et al [8], da Silve et al [9], El-Dardiry and Ji [13], Williams and Waldron [37], Chen [6] determined dynamic responses of composite floors under human activities to assess their vibration serviceability. Ellingwood and Tallin [14] mathematically studied the dynamic response of floors under a pragmatic model instead of the pedestrian dynamic load. Experimental serviceability criteria were also reported to minimise the vibration of the floors.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Transient vibrations characterized by larger amplitudes and quick dissipation are more easily tolerated by humans than a continuous steady-state vibration [44]. Therefore, at a given amplitude, human perception is much greater under steady state than under transient vibrations, and steady-state vibrations are more likely to be viewed as annoying.…”
Section: Human Body Frequency-weighted Response Energymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this paper, the vertical response are mainly considered under pedestrian loads. The pedestrian incentive curve is introduced here [5], as shown in Figure 3. The horizontal ordinate of single foot curve is the contact time of single foot, vertical ordinate is the vertical force.…”
Section: The Pedestrian Load Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%